From: "Eric Beyer" <eibe...@usa.net>
Subject: which SCO to try?
Date: 1998/09/28
Message-ID: <6upo0i$nsj$1@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395871455
X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
X-ELN-Date: Mon Sep 28 21:34:26 1998
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc
Hi, I have been wanting to give SCO a try for the last month or two but I
can't see to decide on which one to try out. I normally use Debian Linux 2.0
and as of lately received Solaris 2.6 x86 media. So should I try UnixWare or
OpenServer? I don't do a whole lot of stuff, just network a couple of
computers in my house and surf the net off a ppp connection. Anyway if
someone would care to give me their opinion on which one I should try I
would appreciate it. Thanks for you time!
Eb
From: Andrew Smallshaw <small...@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: which SCO to try?
Date: 1998/09/29
Message-ID: <3610A9AD.41C67EA6@cs.man.ac.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395925560
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6upo0i$nsj$1@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
To: Eric Beyer <eibe...@usa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Manchester
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc,comp.unix.unixware.misc
NNTP-Posting-User: 13252
[comp.unix.unixware.misc added to get a balanced opinion.]
Eric Beyer wrote:
>
> Hi, I have been wanting to give SCO a try for the last month or two but I
> can't see to decide on which one to try out. I normally use Debian Linux 2.0
> and as of lately received Solaris 2.6 x86 media. So should I try UnixWare or
> OpenServer? I don't do a whole lot of stuff, just network a couple of
> computers in my house and surf the net off a ppp connection. Anyway if
> someone would care to give me their opinion on which one I should try I
> would appreciate it. Thanks for you time!
I can't make up your mind for you. OpenServer is more polished overall
than UnixWare, but UnixWare is the future, whereas OpenServer only
really has couple of years left in it. If you're familiar with neither,
then personally I'd go with UnixWare and save having to make the
conversion later. Also being SVR4 compatible should make porting
software slightly easier. (OpenServer, being neither BSD, Linux or SVR4
based, is to _some_ extent undersupported in terms of
download-the-source software.)
--
Andrew Smallshaw
small...@cs.man.ac.uk
From: Tony Lawrence <t...@aplawrence.com>
Subject: Re: which SCO to try?
Date: 1998/09/29
Message-ID: <3610C1C5.6956@aplawrence.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395939662
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: n...@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
References: <6upo0i$nsj$1@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3610A9AD.41C67EA6@cs.man.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: A.P. Lawrence
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc,comp.unix.unixware.misc
Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
>
> [comp.unix.unixware.misc added to get a balanced opinion.]
>
> Eric Beyer wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I have been wanting to give SCO a try for the last month or two but I
> > can't see to decide on which one to try out.
> I can't make up your mind for you. OpenServer is more polished overall
> than UnixWare, but UnixWare is the future, whereas OpenServer only
> really has couple of years left in it.
I'll agree with this and only add two things:
One: UW7 isn't all that unpolished. UW 2.x was awful (personal opinion,
of course), but there really isn't anything to hate in UW7, even
for die-hard OSR5 folk. See http://www.aplawrence.com/UW/intro.html
for my impressions of it.
Two: Most Linux folk (the original poster was) don't like
OSR5 or Unixware, though I expect they'd have an easier time
with Unixware. It's not that Linux is "better" (though
of course many Linuxoids would disagree), but that so much of what
they are used to doing doesn't work, but enough of it does to
really tick them off about the rest. I have the same feelings
about Linux, so I can understand their frustration. Something
completely foreign is sometimes easier to like than something
that's just annoyingly different here and there..
--
Tony Lawrence (t...@aplawrence.com)
SCO ACE
SCO articles, help, book reviews: http://www.aplawrence.com
From: ucs_...@unx1.shsu.edu (Bob Farmer)
Subject: Re: which SCO to try?
Date: 1998/10/01
Message-ID: <6uvrng$76n$1@unx1.shsu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 396670213
References: <6upo0i$nsj$1@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3610A9AD.41C67EA6@cs.man.ac.uk> <3610C1C5.6956@aplawrence.com>
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@shsu.edu
X-Trace: unxnews.shsu.edu 907244117 9259 158.135.1.10 (1 Oct 1998 12:15:17 GMT)
Organization: Sam Houston State University
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Oct 1998 12:15:17 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc,comp.unix.unixware.misc
In article <3610C1C5.6...@aplawrence.com>,
Tony Lawrence <t...@aplawrence.com> wrote:
>Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
>> [comp.unix.unixware.misc added to get a balanced opinion.]
>>
>> Eric Beyer wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi, I have been wanting to give SCO a try for the last month or two but I
>> > can't see to decide on which one to try out.
>
>> I can't make up your mind for you. OpenServer is more polished overall
>> than UnixWare, but UnixWare is the future, whereas OpenServer only
>> really has couple of years left in it.
>
>I'll agree with this and only add two things:
>
>One: UW7 isn't all that unpolished. UW 2.x was awful (personal opinion,
>of course), but there really isn't anything to hate in UW7, even
>for die-hard OSR5 folk. See http://www.aplawrence.com/UW/intro.html
>for my impressions of it.
>
>Two: Most Linux folk (the original poster was) don't like
>OSR5 or Unixware, though I expect they'd have an easier time
>with Unixware. It's not that Linux is "better" (though
>of course many Linuxoids would disagree), but that so much of what
>they are used to doing doesn't work, but enough of it does to
>really tick them off about the rest. I have the same feelings
>about Linux, so I can understand their frustration. Something
>completely foreign is sometimes easier to like than something
>that's just annoyingly different here and there..
Yeah, I agree, although it's even more true for BSD users than Linux
users. When they go to one of the commercial System V UNIXes (whether it
be Solaris, IRIX, UnixWare, or whatever), they immediately don't like it
usually because things don't work the way they're used to. But I do think
Linux is "better", in that it's much more stable and has many more
features overall. About the only thing I've run across that UW has that
Linux doesn't is production-quality SMP (and Linux will have that soon
enough). But there's a lot of stuff Linux has that UW doesn't... Let's
start with source code, so you can fix any minor bugs you might find,
instead of waiting a year for SCO to do so...
--
Bob Farmer ucs_...@shsu.edu
Computer Services, Sam Houston State University; Huntsville, TX
From: John Hughes <j...@AtlanTech.COM>
Subject: Re: which SCO to try?
Date: 1998/10/01
Message-ID: <ufn27gz3rq.fsf@microlite.CalvaCom.FR>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 396722164
References: <6upo0i$nsj$1@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3610A9AD.41C67EA6@cs.man.ac.uk> <3610C1C5.6956@aplawrence.com> <6uvrng$76n$1@unx1.shsu.edu>
Organization: Atlantic Technologies INC.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc,comp.unix.unixware.misc
ucs_...@unx1.shsu.edu (Bob Farmer) writes:
> About the only thing I've run across that UW has that Linux doesn't
> is production-quality SMP (and Linux will have that soon enough).
And vxfs? And ODM? And STREAMS?
(yes I know about LiS, but that's like going back to SVR3. STREAMS is
best if everything is STREAMS).
(And don't give me any of that "STREAMS is slow" FUD).
--
John Hughes <j...@Calva.COM>,
Atlantic Technologies Inc. Tel: +33-1-4313-3131
66 rue du Moulin de la Pointe, Fax: +33-1-4313-3139
75013 PARIS.
From: ucs_...@unx1.shsu.edu (Bob Farmer)
Subject: Re: which SCO to try?
Date: 1998/10/01
Message-ID: <6v0eef$prg$1@unx1.shsu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 396762855
References: <6upo0i$nsj$1@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3610C1C5.6956@aplawrence.com> <6uvrng$76n$1@unx1.shsu.edu> <ufn27gz3rq.fsf@microlite.CalvaCom.FR>
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@shsu.edu
X-Trace: unxnews.shsu.edu 907263294 9933 158.135.1.10 (1 Oct 1998 17:34:54 GMT)
Organization: Sam Houston State University
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Oct 1998 17:34:54 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc,comp.unix.unixware.misc
In article <ufn27gz3rq....@microlite.CalvaCom.FR>,
John Hughes <j...@AtlanTech.COM> wrote:
>ucs_...@unx1.shsu.edu (Bob Farmer) writes:
>
>> About the only thing I've run across that UW has that Linux doesn't
>> is production-quality SMP (and Linux will have that soon enough).
>
>And vxfs? And ODM? And STREAMS?
Linux's ext2 filesystem supports most of the important (for most people,
IMO) functionality of vxfs: filesystem resizing (but not while online), no
2G filesystem limit, disk quotas, filesystems that span disks, etc. I
know vxfs is a better performer in some areas (one that I've noted:
directories that have a lot of files, ie >100,000), and one would expect
it to recover better after a crash (although this hasn't been my
experience at all with UnixWare in the past--I think that last vxfs patch
cured it, though).
Linux also now has most of the important features of ODM, like software
RAID (striping, parity, etc).
Yeah, UW definitely has the edge in that area but I don't think it's
really a big edge. Also, vxfs and ODM may eventually be available for
Linux, who knows?
I don't think STREAMS is a factor for very many people. Most UW admins
probably don't even know what it is or does. Point taken, though...
--
Bob Farmer ucs_...@shsu.edu
Computer Services, Sam Houston State University; Huntsville, TX
From: David Grothe <d...@gcom.com>
Subject: Re: which SCO to try?
Date: 1998/10/03
Message-ID: <3616940C.888DD0DA@gcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 397447253
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6upo0i$nsj$1@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3610C1C5.6956@aplawrence.com> <6uvrng$76n$1@unx1.shsu.edu> <ufn27gz3rq.fsf@microlite.CalvaCom.FR> <6v0eef$prg$1@unx1.shsu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Gcom, Inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: d...@gcom.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 17:15:56 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sco.misc,comp.unix.unixware.misc
Bob Farmer wrote:
>
> I don't think STREAMS is a factor for very many people. Most UW admins
> probably don't even know what it is or does. Point taken, though...
Linux has an add-on STREAMS package (LiS). It is a basic STREAMS executive
with some DLPI shim drivers to Linux native MAC drivers and to Linux native
IP. There is no plan to implement TCP/IP networking software in STREAMS for
Linux.
We are in the protocol stack/adapter business and STREAMS is very important to
us and our customers. However, our customer base (SCO5, UnixWare, Solaris,
QNX, Linux) is very much a tiny minority of all UnixWare (or Linux) users.
If anybody is curious about Linux STREAMS, connect to http://www.gcom.com and
take the "Linux" link.
-- Dave
|